The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-05-17
MAKING A DISCOVERY.

The Edmunds-Tucker law promises
to develop into quite as much of 6
national issue" as the Mormon
problem" which it was enacted to
solve. The New York Times says, edi
toriaIly:
The District Attorney of Washington has
at last discovered that many of the provi-
sions of the acts relating to polygamy, big
amy, adultery, and Kindred crimes which
have been passed in the last four or five
years are law for the District of Columbia as
well as Utah and other Territories, and he is
now talking about enforcing them for the
Improvement of the CT tvs morals The
penalties provided in these acts for adultery
and certain other crimes are very severe.
But if the authorities at the capital have not
heretofore perceived that parts, at least, of
THESE acts ere law for the District the fact
has received some attention in other eastern
cities and in Utah. A section which is de-
Glazed to be in force "in any Territory or
other place over which the United States
have exclusive jurisdiction" seems 10 be
law for washington. And why should not
a crime committed in the District OF Column
bia be as severely dealt with as the same
crime committed in Utah or Idaho?
The persistent assertion of the Nor
mon people has been that the laws en-
acted by Congress, ostensibly against
polygamy, adultery, fornication. IN
lawful cohabftation, ETC., were enact
ments against religion, ana not in the
interest of good morals. They have
been warranted in this claim by the
manner in which the laws have been
interpreted AID applied. In both the
Edmunds law of 1882 and the
Edmunds Tucker act OF 1887, it is pre-
scribed that those crimes mentioned
shall be punishable Gin Territory or
other place over which the United
States have exclusive jurisdiction; "
yet it Is a well-known fact that no
attempt has been made to apply the law
in any Territory except one occupied
By Mormons; and it is also fact
that even in those places the idea of ap-
plying the law to non -Mormons has
never entered the heads OF the Federal
officials. 1t is not among the probable.
ties that Gentiles are never guilty of I'm
lawful cohabitation, of adultery and Of
fornication. In this Territory a very
considerable percentage of the non
Mormon men make no pretense of being
} osephs, and not a few would be IL
suited if charged with being virtuous.
The Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Da-
kots, New Mexico and Washington
Territory non-Mormons are not better
than their fellows elsewhere; but who
ever heard of the prosecution of non
Mormon in any of those Territories
for any of the crimes forbidden in
the acts of Congress? What would be
thought of the United States ATTORNEY
for Montana who would ask a grand
jury to indict citizen of Butte on the
charge of fornication? The attorney
would probably not be Iynched, for
they don't do that sort of thing up
there as often as they did in olden
times, but his life would be made
miserable for him, and he would be
glsd to resign his commission and make
a home elsewhere. The Edmunds-
- 0SAO4 A0H 0PRAACo W S1lIlC anu ILL
moralities in Montana quite as much
as to the same things in Utah.
But the funny part of the business is
that Congressman never thought that
when they we're legislating against
the Mormons, they were making
laws for the regulation of the
morals of the capital city and the
District of Columbia. 1t is also remark
able that the law officers of government
should have been five years in learning
that Congressional law was in the
books making crimes of things which
were not before criminal in the District
of Columbia.
The Mormons have had q meritorious
cry in their charge of persecution, and
there will be merit in that cry as long
as the law, which does not distinguish
between Mormons and non-Mormons,i is
applied only to the former.